Tag: Faith & Current Events

Posted on

Jobsonian Philosophy? An Assessment of the Secular Philosophy of Steve Jobs and Other Modern Techophiles

An interesting article appeared the in the Wall Street Journal on the Saturday after the passing of Steve Jobs. Written by Andy Crouch, it does a good job (pardon the pun) of distilling the philosophy of technology that is common today. Steve Jobs, a master at technology and business, articulated and exemplified many of its tenants. We do well to examine this philosophy for it is a strong rival to the Christian outlook and has growing numbers of loyalists who see technology as a kind of saving god which has over thrown the older paradigm of the Judeo Christian heritage. It is a kind of substitutional philosophy that deserves so analysis.

I want to present excerpts from the article which is excellent. The full article can be read here: Steve Jobs: Secular Prophet. The text of Mr. Crouch is in bold, black italics, my comments are in red plain text.

Disclaimer: I am a fan of Apple products. I use them and will probably use more in the near future. I respect what Steve Jobs has accomplished and that what he has done has provided benefits for many to include good products, employment and the promotion of excellence. In responding to the philosophical claims of Mr Jobs and others, I am using a form of response that is akin to “rant.” I mean no personal disrespect to Mr Jobs (de mortuis nil nisi bonum).  I disagree with his outlook and philosophy but personally respect what he has accomplished. I regret he did not have faith, yet still I hope to see I hope to see him in the great parousia.

Further, If I seem to be disagreeing with Mr Crouch, I am not, for he is but reporting the philosophy of technology and in the ends raises many of the same questions I do. Remember, to some degree I am using “rant” here in order to pull memorably in the other direction. It is a form of speech that requires context and some degree of appreciation for hyperbole (exaggeration).

Steve Jobs was extraordinary in countless ways—as a designer, an innovator, a (demanding and occasionally ruthless) leader. But his most singular quality was his ability to articulate a perfectly secular form of hope. Nothing exemplifies that ability more than Apple’s early logo, which slapped a rainbow on the very archetype of human fallenness and failure—the bitten fruit—and turned it into a sign of promise and progress. That bitten apple was just one of Steve Jobs’s many touches of genius, capturing the promise of technology in a single glance.

To be honest, I never really connected the Apple logo with a shot across the bow of the Judeo-Christian vision of our fallenness. I recently bought an iMac, which I like very much. But frankly the world of Apple and Mac have not been on my radar that much until recently.

But to be clear, I want to personally testify, that neither Macs nor PCs have made even a dent in the problem of sin. Any look at the typical combox of a blog will show that. If anything we’ve become more coarse and divided in our dialogue, as we tend to retreat from real interactions to virtual ones.

Granted, many new connections can be made, and some of them very beneficial,  but not all of them are good. Internet porn sites are by far the most visited sites on the Internet, most them completely blowing away the nearest competitors.

Viruses also shout sin. Imagine some one sitting at home writing code to infect my computer and crash the hard disk. Talk about evil.

If there is a rainbow over the bitten apple, it’s a hologram, not real at all. The promise of technology to save or redeem us seems hollow, indeed, empty.

The philosopher Albert Borgmann has observed that technology promises to relieve us of the burden of being merely human, of being finite creatures in a harsh and unyielding world. The biblical story of the Fall pronounced a curse upon human work—”cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.” All technology implicitly promises to reverse the curse, easing the burden of creaturely existence. And technology is most celebrated when it is most invisible—when the machinery is completely hidden, combining godlike effortlessness with blissful ignorance about the mechanisms that deliver our disburdened lives.

To say that our lives are “disburdened” is a stretch. It is true that there are many creature comforts today and many once tedious tasks have been eliminated.

But honestly, the more we have, the less satisfied we seem to be. Stress and living at 90 mph with endless interruptions, e-mails, text messages, voice mails, tweets, and Facebook pokes, ain’t no paradise. Psychotropic drugs are sold at record levels to help manage the stress and depression that often results.

The wealthier and more well apportioned we have become, the more anxious we become. Frankly, we have too much to loose and so we are fearful.  And, all our many possessions breed a kind of addiction to them.

Steve Jobs was great at showing us how that phone he just sold a year ago us is no longer enough. In fact, since his new phone came out, the one he sold us last year is now a piece of junk. You ain’t nothing until you get the latest iPhone 5! And there is something sad and pathetic, seeing people lined up for three days in front of a store to buy a stupid phone (oops, I mean “smart phone”), especially when the one they just bought a year ago, is working fine.

Further, the promises of advertisers et al. to make life peachy, also breeds unrealistic expectations, which in turn breeds resentments and disappointments.

Don’t get me wrong, I like technology and use it, but I am not sure it has “relieved me of the burden of being merely human.”  The basic contours of life remain essentially unchanged, and that is, that life has its pleasures and pains, it’s joys and disappointments. Technology hasn’t changed that.

In the end, nothing in this world can fill the God-sized hole in our hearts. This world is not home and we’re always going to feel that we’re living out of a suitcase, because we are.

Politically, militarily, economically, the decade was defined by disappointment after disappointment—but technologically, it was defined by a series of elegantly produced events in which Steve Jobs, commanding more attention and publicity each time, strode on stage with a miracle in his pocket.

But wait a minute, I thought technology was supposed to relieve us of the burden of being merely human! What this I hear about military political and economic disappointment? Isn’t there an app for that?  Looks like we need more than a miracle in a pocket.

He believed so sincerely in the “magical, revolutionary” promise of Apple precisely because he believed in no higher power.

Well, this “magical promise” that replaces the “higher power”  has a lot of work to do.  We still ain’t back in paradise, no matter what the holographic rainbow over the bitten apple says.

In his celebrated Stanford commencement address (which is itself an elegant, excellent model of the genre), he spoke frankly….”No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It’s life’s change agent; it clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now, the new is you. But someday, not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away.”

Sad really. The human person’s dignity reduced to “doing something,” and then, when your usefulness is over and you get in the way of “change,” you need to be cleared away. Sounds like the voice of pure utilitarianism, wherein we are reduced to human doings, rather than human beings. It is clear that, by this philosophy, you do not exist for your own sake. Rather you exist for the purpose of being a “change agent.” And when you start getting in the way of blessed “progress,” holy “change” and other utopian notions, you need to be cut down and cleared away.

[Mr Jobs went on to say] “Sorry to be so dramatic, but it’s quite true. Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma, which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice, heart and intuition.”

Of course dogma is a “no-no” in techno-religion, since it tends to block blessed and holy “progress” and “change.” For, “dogma” is actually more than “other people’s thinking,”  it is the wisdom of past ages, and we can’t have any of that around here. That would get in the way of holy and blessed progress and change. And remember, as soon as you get in the way, you too must be cut down and carried away. Imagine! Learning from the past. No indeed, we certainly can’t be “trapped” by dogma for the reasons stated. Change is all, progress is the pearl of great price. Away with any wisdom from the past (a.k.a “dogma”)!

This is the gospel of a secular age….but the gospel of self-fulfillment does require an extra helping of stability and privilege to be plausible……

Exactly, a philosophy like this can only emerge among the comfortable and well healed, those who are most insulated from life’s often shocking turns. The “do your own thing” dictum is simply not possible for most of the less privileged who are not as free and privileged as Mr Jobs. I wonder if Mr Job’s own employees felt free not to let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice, heart and intuition. It would seem he did give a lot a freedom to some on his staff, but I doubt the guy in shipping,  packing boxes,  felt free to ignore Mr Job’s opinion and follow his own inner voice, heart and ambition. I suspect he felt very obliged obey Mr Job’s thinking (i.e. “dogma”).

 

 

Is it possible to live a good, full, human life without that kind of hope? Steve Jobs would have said yes in a heartbeat. A convert to Zen Buddhism, he was convinced as anyone could be that this life is all there is. But the rest of us, as grateful as we are for his legacy, still have to decide whether technology’s promise is enough to take us to the promised land. Is technology enough? Has the curse truly been repealed? [Technology] works wonders within its own walled garden, but it falters when confronted with the worst of the world and the worst in ourselves. Exactly

OK, so there’s my rant. How say you?

Portrait above, by Tim O’Brien

 

 

I don’t know that I agree with the final line of this video, but it does bring home the point that there are a few thorns and thistles in techno-paradise.

 

 

Posted on

Why Teens Leave the Church – A New but Dubious Study?

Cited below is a summary of a recent report in USA Today on why teenagers leave the Church. As you will see I have a lot of questions about the study which, though admittedly summarized here, seems rather front-loaded. That is, it seems to have asked questions of teens that more imply the expected answer than really seek for the actual answer.

All that said, there is no doubt the Church has had trouble in recent decades retaining young people once they head to college and then begin careers. It used to be that, when they married and started having kids, we’d get many of them back. But with marriage and family being postponed as late as the mid 30s, many of them are lost so long, they never return.

Dubious Study? It is always a good endeavor to seek to understand the dynamics of the current problem. Nevertheless I am not sure this study is very helpful. First,  the results seem a bit dubious to me. They seem more a projection of the poll taker’s issues, than authentic issues of modern youth. Second, some of the reported responses seem rather typical of what all teenagers go through to some extent (rebellion, no one is going to tell me what to do, etc.) Third, even if these responses are accurate, I am not sure what the Church is suppose to do about many of them, since to remedy the problem, would be to ask the Church to not be the Church.

Let’s look at the summary of the report. Again, all I have access to here is the USA Today summary, hence the actual report may not fall under every critique I make. The Full USA Today articel can be read here: USA Today – Teens leave Church. The excerpts presented here are in bold, black, italic type. My remarks are in red plain text.

Why do young Christians leave the church? New research by the Barna Group finds they view churches as judgmental, overprotective, exclusive and unfriendly towards doubters. They also consider congregations antagonistic to science and say their Christian experience has been shallow.

Now, does this really sound like teenagers talking? Most teens I talk to reference more basic things like boredom and not understanding what is going on. I have never heard a teen talk about the Church’s “antagonism to science” on his own. Now, if you front load the question and ask “Do you think the Church is antagonistic to science?” The first thing many teens will ask is what “antagonistic” means. Then when you explain it means “hostile” or “against” they’ll likely say yes, since this is often the subtle narrative in their public school curriculum. But honestly, I doubt this is a big deal with most of them and it sounds like the surveyors are putting words in the teens’ mouths.

And can you really imagine a teenager, even an 18 or 19 year old talking about a church being “unfriendly to doubters?” This sounds more like a Gen X or Baby Boomer phrase that comes out of the Willow Creek “seeker sensitive” lingo.

And again, “shallow” sounds like a word that was put in their mouth by the survey takers. I don’t think current teens use words like this. Perhaps, boring, or dumb or stupid, or irrelevant, but shallow?

Pardon me for being dubious about the nature of this survey. It sounds like older and rather cynical poll takers putting thoughts, words and phrases in young people’s mouths.

The findings, the result of a five-year study, are featured in You Lost Me: Why Young Christians are Leaving Church and Rethinking Faith, a new book by Barna president David Kinnaman. The project included a study of 1,296 young adults who were current or former churchgoers.

Researchers found that almost three out of five young Christians (59 percent) leave church life either permanently or for an extended period of time after age 15. One in four 18- to 29-year-olds said “Christians demonize everything outside of the church.” One in three said “Church is boring.”

OK, these are serious numbers and I’ve sure heard the “Church is boring” claim. But frankly, young people find a lot of things boring including school, family gatherings, museums, conversations, reading, you name it. While we can’t ignore it, there does seem to be something inevitable about boredom at this stage of life. One of my visual images of a teenager is of a young man slouched in a chair, hands in his pocket, looking up and about, somewhat dazed, bored and with mild contempt on his face. Not every teen is this way, but it is a common trait. We can try to engage them better, but there is something of a phase they are going through that may not entirely be the fault of the Church.

As for “Christians demonizing everything outside of the church” this too sounds like a supplied view in the survey. For example, if I were a teen and heard a question, “Do you thing Christians demonize everything outside the church?” I might first wonder what “demonize” meant. Then, having been told that to demonize means “to consider as evil,” I’d probably say, “Yeah, right. That’s exactly right!” But frankly I have never heard a teen use a phrase like this and I figure it was a phrase supplied by the poll takers, not a phrase actually emerging from interviews with current teenagers.

Further I wonder as to the neutrality of the poll takers who speak of “Christians demonizing everything outside the Church.” The question seems more rhetorical than an authentic question. Would these same poll takers think to ask young people if they thought “Scientists demonize or dismiss everything outside science?” No, of course not. That doesn’t fit the narrative that says it is only Christians who are judgmental and “demonize.”

Clashes between church expectations and youths’ experience of sexuality have driven some away. One in six young Christians said they “have made mistakes and feel judged in church because of them.” And 40 percent of 18- to 29-year-old Catholics said their church’s doctrine on sexuality and birth control is “out of date.“

What to do? OK, but here is an example of data that is not surprising but, at the end of the day, what is the Church supposed to do? We cannot change our doctrine on this. Perhaps we can catechize on human sexuality better. But, frankly, even with a lot of education on the matter, many in today’s world still reject the teaching.

Frankly, many people reject Church teaching on sexuality not due only to lack of knowledge, but mainly because it is inconvenient to their moral life. To a great extent they do know, deep down, that much of what they are doing is wrong. I have never spoken with a cohabiting couple who didn’t know, deep down, that what they were doing was wrong.

But psychologically we usually like to deflect our guilt. And so people say the Church is “out of date,” and if you call me on it “you are being judgmental.” But, deep down, they know it’s wrong.

Also, I am not sure that the “out of date” charge from teens is unique to these times. Even back in the stricter 1950s, I am willing to bet that young people saw the Church teachings on sex as “out of date.” Things like that were just less openly discussed and surveyed in those days. And, there were more cultural mechanisms in place to ensure compliance. Plus, marriage happened a lot earlier, and people grew up a lot faster, and saw the wisdom of the teaching more clearly, at least insofar as fornication and adultery go.

Contraception is another story, and much more has to be done to help people see how this hideous recasting of sex has led huge problems with promiscuity, STDs, abortion, higher divorce rates, an explosion of single parent families, homosexual confusion and on and on. In the 1960s we sowed in the wind and we have reaped the whirlwind. We have discussed that here before, and will need to do so again.

Kinnaman called the problem of young dropouts from church “particularly urgent” since many churches are used to “traditional” young adults who leave home, get educated, find a job and start a family before age 30.

Yes, this is a big shift. When I was ordained, just under 25 years ago, most couples I prepared for marriage were in their mid 20s. Now they are in their mid 30s. Starting a family was a traditional path back to Church. Not any more.

“Churches are not prepared to handle the ‘new normal,'” said Kinnaman. “However, the world for young adults is changing in significant ways, such as their remarkable access to the world and worldviews via technology, their alienation from various institutions, and their skepticism toward external sources of authority, including Christianity and the Bible.“

All this could be said for older Church members as well. There’s no doubt, we’re in a real pickle when it comes to secularization and increasingly vocal hostility to the Christian faith. The Catholic Church is especially singled out for hatred.

But here again, the Church can only do so much. Simply changing to fit the times, has been tried by most of the main-line Protestants denominations and look at them, they are far worse off than we are in the Catholic Church. Surely we must continue to engage the culture in an on-going discussion and use every form of media possible. Fr. Barron’s Catholicism Series is a good example of how we can more effectively teach the faith.

But in the end we are what we are. Paul wrote to Timothy that the Gospel must be preached in season and out of season. Right now we’re increasingly out of season. We can make some strategic moves to better communicate the faith, but at some level, there are also some cultural mega-trends that may simply limit our numbers for now. When it came to numbers Jesus never seemed all that obsessed. In fact, when the crowds grew large Jesus would often give a “hard saying.” (e.g. Lk 11:29; Matt 19:1ff; John 6; Lk 5:19ff; Matt 9:23 ff, inter al). And while it is true that Jesus said we should go to all the nations, he did say we could, should, or would please most of them.

So our task seems clear. We must not cease to evangelize, but we must also realize that these may be times of sowing more than harvesting. Turing around things simply and quickly may be difficult. But above all we must never compromise the Gospel merely to draw numbers. The Church must be the Church. I am working to double the numbers at my parish this year. But we’re not going to do it by being conforming to consumerist demands, but by being compelling in the proclamation of the truth faith.

As always, I am interested in what you think.

At some level teenage rebellion is just a phase. Sadly though our modern culture puts it on steroids by glorifying it in music etc. Here’s an example from my high school daze:

Sittin’ in the classroom thinkin’ it’s a drag
Listening to the teacher rap-just ain’t my bag
When two bells ring you know it’s my cue
Gonna meet the boys on floor number 2
Smokin’ in the boys room
Teacher don’t you fill me up with your rule
Everybody knows that smokin’ ain’t allowed in school

Posted on

On the Inadequacy of the World As Advertised

One of the implicit messages in the advertisements we see is, in effect, “You are not adequate, you are not pretty enough, thin enough, healthy enough, popular enough, rich enough.” Further, “The world is a threatening and difficult place and you are not up to the task.” And then comes the pitch, “Buy our product and you’ll make it, you’ll measure up and solve life’s challenges. You won’t be so pathetic and ill equipped.” So the basic recipe is: incite fear and push the product as a solution.

And to be fair, the advertisements often do this with humor and creativity. Further, it is not wrong to sell a product to help meet a need. Needs are simply facts of human existence and people and companies do have good products to help us meet these needs.

But in the end we need to be more consciously aware that not every fear or apparent inadequacy elicited by an advertiser is a real or legitimate fear, or actual inadequacy. We don’t all have to be young, good looking, popular and perfectly healthy to be happy. I used to be young tan and trim, increasingly now, I am old, white and fat. But God is good and I am quite happy and more blessed than I deserve. I am also reasonably healthy, despite the extra weight. And even if advertisers insist that I should look and feel as I did at 25, I’m not buying into the fear, guilt and inadequacy thing. It’s wonderful to get older. And though my outer self, my body, is less sound and sleek, my inner self is being renewed day by day (cf 2 cor 4:16). I am more alive today than I ever was at 25.

Another thing that goes unsaid is the ultimate inadequacy of anything in this world to really satisfy us. Despite the many promises of ads and other media, no one product or even a huge collection of many products can really fill the God-sized hole in our hearts. I will say, there are many things that bring convenience and comfort. But, in the end, they don’t really cut the deal when it comes to deep satisfaction. In fact, the more we have, the more dissatisfied we seem to be. This is probably due to the unrealistic expectations all these creature comforts and pervasive ads strive to create. But in the end the words of Ecclesiastes still ring true:

All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye is never satisfied with seeing, nor the ear with hearing. What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new”? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. (Ecclesiastes 1:8-10)

Indeed, this world cannot live up to its hype. That longing in your heart which too easily is translated as “Buy a new car,” is better translated, “Seek always the face of the Lord” (cf Psalm 27:8) . Occasionally a new car is warranted but it won’t do the trick the advertisers say. A good beer, or a glass of wine can cheer the heart, but not really heal it .

So here we are in media world permeated with many unrealistic premises. We do well to ponder the often unquestioned assumptions of these marketers, even as we enjoy and use some their products.

In the following two videos, both Bud Light commercials, there are actually a couple of moments when the veil is pulled back and the inadequacy of the product is admitted, albeit in a humorous and subtle way.

In the first ad, two men are hopelessly bored  as they sit through an opera with their wives. But Bud Light (smuggled in) comes to the rescue! Unfortunately, the glass bottles prove insufficient to withstand the opera as the “fat lady” sings. Alas, the beer could not really come through in the end! But wait! There is a twist in the end, maybe it really “can.”Nevertheless, just for a moment we see that maybe beer can’t really make everything OK.

In the second ad, our beer drinkers have installed rubber floors so that they will never break a beer bottle again. But alas, there are unintended consequences that emerge. And here too is a brief moment of truth as we learn that beer isn’t everything, and that choosing to make beer the point, may cause harm to other things we value. A brief moment of truth that “Dog-gone-it, you can’t have it all, even with beer at the center!”

By the way, nothing personal with Bud Light. Your blogger enjoys a nice cold Bud light from time to time!

Photo Credit: Trash on Earth.com

Posted on

On the Inopportune Nature of Capital Punishment

Most arguments about Capital Punishment focus on whether it is intrinsically right or wrong. But perhaps there is a middle position, wherein Capital punishment is not described as intrinsically wrong, but its use is described essentially as inopportune. Let’s just call this the inopportunist position.

This is largely where I stand. I am an inopportunist, acknowledging that Capital Punishment is not intrinsically wrong, but also arguing it should seldom or ever be used under current circumstances. More on that in a minute.

But first to say, I think it is clear that Capital punishment is permitted by the Scriptures, under certain circumstances, even in the New Testament. For example, St. Paul says,

Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. (Rom 13:3-4)

With a text like this it is clear that the Church cannot simply declare the death penalty intrinsically wrong. In this sense it is different from abortion, for in abortion the innocent are murdered. In capital punishment the (presumably) guilty are killed, to both punish them and protect others.

It is also a true fact that, when asked to enforce the law that an adulteress be stoned to death, Jesus did not do so and did not agree with any insistence that the Law must be followed. Yet he did not act to abrogate the law in this respect in any judicial sort of way.  So while it is hard to demonstrate that he set aside the law, altogether, it is clear that he does not insist that punitive regulations requiring the death penalty be followed. Hence, neither are we required to apply this penalty according to Old Testament provisions.

So, to be clear, since scripture cannot be merely set aside, and since the New Testament does not explicitly abrogate recourse to the death penalty permitted in the Old Testament, then the Church does not, and I would argue, cannot, declare it to intrinsically wrong. But neither can or should we insist that all Old Testament punitive law requiring the death penalty for certain crimes, be enforced.

Prudential Judgment – So, lets argue that, given the New Testament record, we are permitted but not required to use the death penalty.  And if we are permitted, but not required to do do something, we are now in the realm of practical or prudential judgment, not merely moral judgment. And, for the Church, we are also in the realm of pastoral judgment.

“Pastoral judgment” here indicates a judgment, based on careful discernment, by the pastors of the Church (The Pope and Bishops, effectively),  of the best stance and teaching for the Church on this matter. Their judgment should be based in Scripture and Tradition, but also, as a practical and prudential judgment, takes into account the current context, and how this issue affects and influences other teachings and the Church’s capacity to teach and witness to them.

With all this in mind, I would argue that the Church has adopted, as a prudential judgement and pastoral approach, what I am calling the “inopportunist” position. Namely, that Capital Punishment, though not intrinsically evil, and permissible under certain very specific situations, is not required, and should almost never be used. The Catechism states this clearly enough:

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2267)

As a prudential judgment and pastoral approach the Catechism states some of the following reasons that Capital Punish be rare, if not  non-existent. Such a position is:

  1. more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good – It would seem that here there is a reference to the overall pastoral vision of the Church to restore greater respect for the sacredness of all human life. We live in times where this is particularly doubted by many. The Church has battled powerfully to end abortion, withstand euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and so forth. Further, there is the often hidden but profound tragedy that over 90% of pregnancies with a poor prognosis (i.e. birth defects, Down Syndrome, etc) are “terminated.” In other parts of the world, and even here in America, some use abortion for sex-selection. But the Church insists that human life is sacred, even when coming to us in the non-preferred sex, or with the burdens of handicaps and challenges. Given the overall and increasing disrespect for human life, especially with regard to troubled human persons, the Church has adopted as a pastoral approach that serves the wider common good of respect for all human life, even of the guilty. This pastoral stance makes sense, for the credibility of our witness to life and to the common good that such a witness serves. And though it is possible for us to make distinctions as we did above, such distinctions are often lost on an often cynical populace. There is not a pro-lifer around who hasn’t had to answer questions cynically raised by those who scorn pro-lifers’ consistency on the issue of life. There is a good pastoral and prudential judgement that says, Capital punishment should be off the table – just don’t use it.
  2. more in conformity to the dignity of the human person – This largely includes what is said above. It may be hard for us emotionally to see and accept this, but even serious criminals do not lose their fundamental dignity. Note the Catechism does not say that Capital punishment intrinsically violates human dignity, only that eliminating it practically is “more” in keeping with human dignity.  In this regard, note that in God’s original dispensation, long before the Mosaic Law, God confronted Cain for killing his brother, and God punished him with exile in the land of Nod. But Cain feared for his life. But the LORD said to him, Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over. Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. (Gen 4:15). Hence, though punished, Cain did not loose his dignity nor was the sacredness of his life forfeited.
  3. without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – While some argue that the impending death of a criminal will help him repent, the usual human experience is that repentance and conversion take place more slowly over time. God himself adopts a great patience with us as Scripture says, The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Rather, He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). For us who would be like God, we want every one to come to repentance and be saved, even those who have done terrible things. Hence the Catechism teaches it is fitting for us to allow the guilty to live in hopes that they may come to life saving repentance.

Hence, the Church, without ruling Capital Punishment intrinsically evil, sees its use to be inopportune for the reasons stated. So what is a Catholic to do?

Why not just stand with the Pope and Bishops on this? We’re in a tremendous battle to recover the dignity of all human life (not just some) and the death penalty is a fly in the ointment. It distracts from the pro-life vision and renders the witness of many pro-lifers less effective. Recent Popes and most all the world’s bishops and the Catechism have adopted a position which excludes recourse to the death penalty and such a position makes good sense given the climate we are in.

Again, why not just stand with them? They are our pastoral leaders and have asked precisely this, that we stand together with them on this and all other life issues.Why not just do it? Why not set politics aside, and personal preferences too and say, “For the sake of unity and a more coherent and powerful pro-life witness, I will stand with the Pope and Bishops on this.”

Is insisting on the death penalty really that important? Why die on that hill (pardon the expression)? Given that the Church does not say it is intrinsically wrong,  and thus your conscience is respected, is it really so awful to say, “I will stand with the Church on this and oppose frequent use of the death penalty, that I will ask that it almost never be used” ?  Is what the Pope and bishops teach really so bad?

Think about it. Perhaps there is a “third way” in this case. Perhaps we need not argue forever on whether the death penalty is right or wrong, just that its use is inopportune, given current conditions and the pastoral challenges to restore respect for life in accord with the common good. Think practically and prudentially. Again, think about it.

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

In this Video Senator Rick Santorum looks at the Pro-life continuum in a stunning way:

Posted on

What if Hollywood Wrote the Paschal Mystery?

What would happen if Hollywood got hold of salvation history? The following video is meant to be funny and it is. But consider that it unwittingly makes a very important point.

You see, Hollywood loves the “happy ending” and notions like the cross are quite foreign there. Hence, in this clip the Terminator, (Arnold!) won’t let Jesus die! According to Hollywood Jesus, our hero has to live. Further, Hollywood often solves things with violence. Almost every action movie is permeated with violence, revenge and death to enemies. So this video, (pardon the relatively poor quality) shows what would happen if Hollywood tried to “rework” the paschal mystery.

Now if Hollywood with its worldly perspective got its way we’d still be dead in our sins. An old Gospel song says, “He would not come down from that Cross just to save himself. He decided to die just to save me.“

So now that you’ve permitted me to be serious for just a moment, enjoy a rather silly video, though please overlook the “cartoonish” violence that is part of the shtick.

Posted on

Aut Deus aut Mendax – Either the Lord God, or a Liar. A Consideration of the Divinity of Jesus as the "Make or Break" Dogma

I just viewed the First Episode of Catholicism with my Bible Study Students. The series, as many of you already know, is fabulous and I cannot recommend it enough. In the First 20 minutes  Fr. Barron goes right to the heart of the faith and makes it clear that Jesus is God, He is the Lord.

And this truth about him is not only the most stunning aspect of our faith, it is also the most uncompromising. Jesus is Lord. While there are some today who want to find some middle ground by calling Jesus merely “a good man” or a “fine ethical teacher,”…. sorry,  no can do. His divine claims cannot be set aside as if they weren’t there, so we can accept his “less controversial” call to love. The whole Jesus, the real Jesus, can be very disconcerting and he compels a choice. We are free to choose, but we are not free NOT to choose: either he is Lord, or he is a liar. Decide.

Indeed, an old Latin phrase expresses that there is no middle ground between “Jesus is Lord” and any lesser declaration. The Latin phrase is Aut Deus, aut mendax. Another version goes: Aut Deus, aut homo malus In other words, either Jesus is the Lord God, or he is a liar, Either he is God, or a very evil man. Either he is who he claims to be, or he is seriously deluded, dangerous, and a blasphemer, one to whom we should not listen. And if He is who He claims, then we must worship and obey him as Lord. But you can’t have it both ways.

Many years ago in seminary I was quite surprised to listen to some of my professors try an do just that. Want to have Jesus be more palatable to the modern setting, they would often declare what I considered to be heretical things about Jesus Christ. Some of them said, he did not claim to be God, or he did not know he was God. When I might meekly suggest a certain text that more than suggested he darn well knew he was Divine they would simply declare that Jesus never really said what I was quoting from the Scripture. They said the early Church “simply put those words in his mouth.” They would especially put their nose in the air and sniff if I quoted from John’s Gospel which they regarded as a later and non-historical reflection on Christ.

Thankfully I had some other professors who were able to reassure me that the Divinity of Christ was not in question and that the Scriptures accurately what reported what Jesus himself actually said and did. It still shocked me that teachers who denied or questioned the divinity of Christ could openly teach in a Catholic seminary and am happy to report that those problems have long since been cleared up at the seminary I attended. Yet, I must say, I am still bothered to hear that some college students still have to endure this sort of heresy, it is especially grievous to me that some of this still goes on at Catholic Colleges.

Never one to simply collapse under pressure or discouragement I took up the challenge to assemble the Biblical evidence as to Jesus’ Divinity. It is remarkably rich and consistent throughout all the New Testament Books as you shall see. In this article I give the scripture citations for the most part but cannot include most of the texts in the article since they are so numerous that they would eclipse the article itself. Perhaps at some point in the future I will publish a version with all the citations spelled out. For now, let these suffice to show forth a glorious Scriptural affirmation of the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He is Lord.

1. Clearly this is a dogma of the Faith (de Fide). The divinity and divine Sonship of Jesus is expressed in all the creeds. This is perhaps most clearly stated in the Athanasian Creed (Quicumque):”…we believe and confess that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is God and man. He is God begotten of the substance of the Father before all ages and man born in time of the substance of His Mother. He is Perfect God and perfect man.”

2. There are many passages in the Old Testament that express the qualities of the coming Messiah, among them are some very exalted titles:

  • a prophet – (Dt. 18:15,18)
  • a priest – (Psalm 109:4)
  • a shepherd – (Ez 34:23ff)
  • King and Lord – (Ps 2; Ps 44; Ps 109; Zach 9:9)
  • a suffering servant – (Is. 53)
  • the Son of God – (Ps 2:7; 109:3)
  • God with us (Emmanuel) – (Is 7:14; Is 8:8)
  • Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of the world to come, Prince of Peace – (Is 9:6)
  • Eternal King – (Dan 7:14)

3. In the New Testament the Father attests to the Divine Sonship of Jesus – (Mt 3:17; 17:5; Mk 9:7; Lk 3:22; 9:35; Jn 1:34; II Pt 1:17)

4. In the Gospels the Lord Jesus gives Testimony to His own divinity and self knowledge. He is of noble stature and knows of his own dignity and power expressing it often in the following ways

  • Jesus indicates that he transcends the prophets and Kings of the Old Covenant
    • Jonah and Solomon – (Mt 12:41ff; Lk 11:31ff)
    • Moses and Elijah – Matt 17:3; Mk 9:4; Lk 9:30
    • King David – (Mt 22:43ff Mk 12:36; Lk 20:42ff)
    • He says that the least born into His Kingdom will be greater than John the Baptist who, till that time was considered the greatest man born of woman – (Mt 11:11; Lk 7:28)
  • Jesus teaches that he is superior to the angels:
    • That they are his servants who minister to Him – (Mt 4:11 Mk 1:13; Lk 4:13)
    • That they are his army – (Mt 26:53)
    • That they will accompany him at his second coming and do his will -Mt 16:27; 25:31; Mk 8:38; Lk 9:26)
  • Jesus appropriates Divine actions unto himself and thus sets forth an assimilation unto the Lord God:
    • He declares it was He who sent the prophets and doctors of the Law (Mt 23:34; Lk 11:49)
    • He gives the promise of his assistance and Grace (Lk 21:15)
    • He forgives sins which power belongs to God alone (e.g. Mt 9:2)
    • He, by His own authority completes and changes some precepts of the Law. (Mt 5:21ff)
    • He declares Himself to be Lord of the Sabbath (Mt 12:8; Mk 2:28; Lk 6:5; Jn 5:17)
    • Like the Heavenly Father he makes a Covenant with His followers (Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 22:20)
  • Jesus makes Divine demands upon his followers
    • He rebukes some for lack of faith in him (Mt 8:10-12; 15:28)
    • He rewards faith in him (Mt 8:13; 9:2; 22:29; 15:28; Mk 10:52; Lk 7:50; 17:19)
    • He demands faith in his own person (Jn 14:1; 5:24; 6:40,47; 8:51; 11:25ff)
    • He teaches that rejection of him and his teachings will be the standard of final judgement (Lk 9:26; Mt 11:6)
    • Jesus demands supreme Love for him which surpasses all earthly loves (Mt 10:37,39; Lk 17:33).
    • He accepts religious veneration by allowing the veneration of falling to the feet: this is due to God alone (Mt 15:25; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 28:9,17)
  • Jesus is well conscious of His own power – Mt 28:18
    • His many miracles which he works in his own Name.
    • He transfers this power to his disciples
  • Jesus knows and teaches that his own death will be an adequate atonement for the forgiveness of the sins of the whole human race. (Mt 20:28; 26:28)
  • Jesus appropriates to himself the office of Judge of the world which according to the OT (eg Ps 49:1-6) God would exercise (eg Mt 16:27) . And His judgement extends to every idle word (Mt 12:36), will be final and executed immediately – (Mt 25:46)
  • Jesus is Conscious of being the Son of God.
    • Jesus clearly distinguishes his claim in this regard from his disciples relationship to the Father. When he speaks of his own relationship he says, “My Father” To the disciples he calls God, “Your Father” but, He never unites himself with them in the formula “Our Father” Thus a distinction is maintained. (Jn 20:17)
    • Jesus revealed himself to be Son of God first in the temple when he remarked to Mary and Joseph that He must be about his Father’s business (Lk 2:49)
    • Jesus claims to be both messiah and Son of God in the presence of the Sanhedrin (Mk 14:62). The Sanhedrin perceive this as a blasphemy.
    • Jesus tells a story of himself in the Parable of the Evil Husbandmen thus confessing himself to be the only Son of God.
    • He is aware of being one with the Father (“The Father and I are one.” (Jn 10:30,38) They Jews respond by accusing Him of blasphemy
  • Jesus indicates in John’s Gospel that
    • He is eternal “Before Abraham was I am” (Jn 8:58)
    • That He has full knowledge of the Father (Jn 7:29; 8:55;10:14ff)
    • He has equal power and efficacy with the Father (Jn 5:17)
    • He can forgive sins (Jn 8:11 et sicut supra)
    • He is Judge of the World (Jn 5:22,27 & sicut supra)
    • He is rightly to be adored (Jn 5:23)
    • He is the light of the world (Jn 8:12)
    • He is the way, the truth and the light (Jn 14:6)
    • His disciples may and ought to pray to the Father in His name, additionally they may to Him (Jesus) (Jn 14:13ff 16:23ff)
    • The solemn confession of the Apostle Thomas “My Lord and my God.” is acceptable and in fact, an act of Faith (Jn 20:28)
  • Other Scripture Passages on the Divinity of Christ
    • I John 5:20 – “And we know that the Son of God is Come and has given us Understanding that we may know the true God and may be in His True Son; this is the True God and Life Eternal.”
    • John 1:1-14 “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God…..”
    • Phil 2:5-11 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped…and every tongue must confess to the Glory of God the Father that Jesus Chirst is Lord.
    • Rom 9:5 – “to them, (the Israelites) belong the patriarchs and of their race, according to the flesh is the Christ, who is God over all blessed for ever.”
    • Titus 2:13 “Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ.”
    • Heb 1:8 – “But to the Son (God says): Your Throne, O God is for ever and ever.”
  • In addition Scripture attributes Divine qualities to Jesus
    • Omnipotence manifest in the creation and the conservation of the World – Col 1:15-17; I Cor 8:6; Heb 1:2ff
    • Omniscience – Col 2:3 – In Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge….
    • Eternity – Col 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together
    • Immutability – Heb 1:12; 13:8
    • Adorability – Phil 2:10; Heb 1:6

Well I hope you get the point. Those who claim that Jesus didn’t know he was God or never made divine claims just haven’t read the Scriptures. And those who would want to “tame” Jesus, by removing his “controversial” (to say the least) claim that He is Lord, have to realize that they must set aside enormous numbers of things said by Jesus about himself to do that. Calling him a “good man” who “taught us to love” is to evade the compelling question: Is He the Lord or is He a liar and a blasphemer? This question must be unambiguously answered by every Christian, He is Lord,  He is God. All things came to be through him and he holds all creation together in himself. And those who have denied his divinity will one day fall to their faces before his glory (Rev. 1:17).

Elijah once rebuked the people saying, “How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.” And the people did not answer him a word. (1 Kings 18:21). But we must answer. Is Jesus the Lord, or a lair? And if Jesus is Lord, follow him and realize that you will one day stand before him to render an account. But we cannot trivialize or tame Jesus. Neither can we evade our decision about him.  Our whole destiny rests on this choice, this answer.  Choose the Lord.

Please take time to view the Catholicism series, by Fr. Robert Barron. He, by God’s grace has done a marvelous thing. You won’t be disappointed.

Here is a scene from the Movie “The Gospel of John” where Jesus, in effect, calls the question.



Here is the Catholicism trailer:

Posted on

Five Hard Truths That Will Set You Free

Some years ago I read an essay by the Franciscan Theologian Richard Rohr. I will say, (honestly) that I do not share a lot of agreement with Richard Rohr (no need to detail that here), but I found this particular essay compelling. I do not recall the exact title of that essay but in my mind the title “Five Hard Truths that Will Set You Free” seems the best title. The following five truths from that essay are indeed hard truths. They tend to rock our world and stab at the heart of some of our most cherished modern notions. But if they can be accepted for the truth they convey they bring great peace. We live is a rather self-absorbed, self-focused time and these five truths are not only good medicine for that but they also help us to have more realistic expectations as we live in an imperfect and limited world. Study these truths well. If they irritate you a bit, good, they’re supposed to. They are meant to provoke thought and reassessment. The principles are Richard Rohr’s the comments are mine.

1. Life is hard –We live in rather comfortable times. These are times of convenience and central air conditioning. Medicine has removed a lot of pain and suffering, and consumer goods are in abundance and variety. Entertainment comes in many varieties and is often inexpensive. Hard labor is something few of us know, obesity is common due to over abundance.

Because of all these creature comforts we have tended to expect that life should always be peachy. We are rather outraged at suffering, inconvenience and delay.

Our ancestors lived lives that were far more brutal and short, and they often spoke of life as a “vale of tears,” and understood that suffering was just a part of life. But when we suffer we start to think in terms of lawsuits. Suffering seems obnoxious to us, hard work, unreasonable! We are often easily angered and flung into anxiety at the mere threat of suffering.

This principle reminds us that suffering and difficulty are part of life, something that should be expected. Accepting suffering does not mean we have to like it. But acceptance of the fact that life can be hard at times means we get less angry and anxious when it does come. We do not lose serenity. Accepting that suffering is inevitable, brings a strange sort of peace. We are freed from unrealistic expectations that merely breed resentments. We also become more grateful for the joys we do experience. Accepting that life can be hard is a truth that sets us free.

2. Your life is not about you– If you want to make God laugh tell Him your plans. If you really want to give him a belly laugh, tell Him, His plans! We often like to think that we should just be able to do what ever pleases us and maximizes our “self-actualization.” However, we do not decide alone what course our life will take.

In this age of “nobody tells me what to do” it is important to be reminded that our true happiness comes not from getting what we want, but what God wants. Our destiny isn’t to follow our star but to follow God. True peace comes from careful discernment of God’s will for us.

It is sad how few people today ever really speak with God about important things like careers, entering into a marriage, pondering a large project. We just go off and do what we please, and expect God to bail us out if it doesn’t go well. You and I do not exist merely for our own whims, we have a place in God’s plan. Our serenity is greater when we prayerfully discern that place and humbly seek God’s will. Accepting the fact that we are not merely masters of our own destiny, and captains of our own ship, gives us greater peace and usually saves us a lot of mileage.

Humbly accepting the truth that my life is not simply about me and what I want is a truth that sets me free. This is true because we often don’t get what we want. If we can allow life to unfold more and not demand that everything be simply what I want I am more serene and free.

3. You are not in control– Control is something of an illusion. You and I may have plans for tomorrow but there are many things between now and tomorrow over which I have no control. For example, I cannot even control or guarantee the next beat of my heart. Hence I may think I have tomorrow under control, but tomorrow is not promised and may never come.

Because we think we control a few things, we think we can control many things. Not really. Our attempts to control and manipulate outcomes are comical, if not hurtful.

Thinking that we can control many things leads us to think that we must control them. This in turn leads to great anxiety, and often anger.

We usually think that if we are in control we will be less anxious. This is not true, we are more anxious. The more we think we can control, the more we try to control, and thus, the greater our burdens and anxiety. In the end we get angry because we discover that there many things and people we cannot control after all. This causes frustration and fear.

We would be freer and less anxious if we would simply accept the fact that there are many things, most things, over which I have no control. Our expectation of everything being under control is unrealistic. Life comes at you fast and brooding over unpredictable things and uncontrollable matters is bondage. Simply accepting that I am often not in control is freeing.

4. You are not that important– Uh Oh! Now this one hurts. I thought the whole world should revolve around me. I thought it was only my feelings that mattered, and my well- being that was important. Truth be told, we are loved by God in a very particular way, but that does not over rule the fact that I must often yield to others who are also loved by God in a very special way.

The truth is sometimes that other people are more important than me. I might even be called on to give my life so that others may live. I must often yield to others whose needs are more crucial than mine. The world doesn’t exist just for me, and what I want.

There is great peace and freedom in coming to accept this. We are often made so anxious if we are not recognized, and others are, or if our feelings and preferences are not everyone’s priority. Accepting the truth that I am not that important allows us to relax and enjoy caring about other people and celebrating their importance too.

5. You are going to die. –  Yes, it is a hard truth but it is very freeing. We get all worked up about what this world dishes out. But take a walk in a cemetery. Those folks were all worked up too. Now their struggles are over and, if they were faithful they are with God,  they now experience that “trouble don’t last always.”

This truth also helps us to do the most important thing: get ready to meet God. So many people spend their lives clowning around and goofing off. Yet our most urgent priority is to prepare to meet God. In the end, this is freeing because we are loosed from the many, excessive and contrary demands of the world and we concentrate on doing the one thing necessary. Our life simplifies and we don’t take this world too seriously, it is passing away. There is peace and freedom in coming to accept this.

So there you have them. Five hard truths that will set you free. Think about them. Memorize them too and pull them out when life comes at you fast and hard with it’s agenda of control, self importance and empty promises of perfect comfort here on earth. A simple, sober, humble and focused life brings great serenity.

Painting above: Open Door By Donna Shasteen
As Seen In: The Illustrated Word


Some readers of this blog may recognize this post as a reworking of one I did two years ago. Every now and then, the day just gets past me, I was in meetings all day, and thought, “This will be a day to post a “greatest hits!”

Posted on

Exploring Four Myths About the Crusades

Back in Seminary I remember a Church History instructor warning us not to be “too defensive” of the Church when others point to our shortcomings. He said that the Church is so big and so old, that just about anything you can say probably has some truth to it. He went on to clarify that it didn’t mean that everything said about the Church was necessarily fair or set in proper context to be understood. Neither was it fair that the Church was often singled out. Nevertheless given the billions who have been Catholic over 2000 years, there are plenty of sinners and plenty of saints, lots of glory and lots that was gory. So be careful he said, “Never deny, seldom affirm, always distinguish.

Hence when we come to the Crusades, we have a bit of a balancing act. At one level, the usual pointing to this historical period with selective moral outrage, is a tired old attack on the Church, an attack, usually simplistic in its understanding, devoid of historical context, and quite one-sided. That said, there were surely excesses and gravely sinful acts that often come in the fog of any war, religious or not.

With that in mind I’d like to look at excerpts from article recently published over at First Principles, the Article is Entitled: Four Myths About the Crusades. The Author is Paul Crawford. In the excerpts that follow, his text is in bold, black italics. My comments are in red plain text. The full text of his lengthy and excellent article can be read by click the title above.

Myth #1: The crusades represented an unprovoked attack by Western Christians on the Muslim world.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and even a cursory chronological review makes that clear. In a.d. 632, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, North Africa, Spain, France, Italy, and the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica were all Christian territories. Inside the boundaries of the Roman Empire, which was still fully functional in the eastern Mediterranean, orthodox Christianity was the official, and overwhelmingly majority, religion. Outside those boundaries were other large Christian communities—not necessarily orthodox and Catholic, but still Christian. Most of the Christian population of Persia, for example, was Nestorian. Certainly there were many Christian communities in Arabia.

By a.d. 732, a century later, Christians had lost Egypt, Palestine, Syria, North Africa, Spain, most of Asia Minor, and southern France. Italy and her associated islands were under threat, and the islands would come under Muslim rule in the next century. The Christian communities of Arabia were entirely destroyed in or shortly after 633, when Jews and Christians alike were expelled from the peninsula. Those in Persia were under severe pressure. Two-thirds of the formerly Roman Christian world was now ruled by Muslims.

What had happened?…The answer is the rise of Islam. Every one of the listed regions was taken, within the space of a hundred years, from Christian control by violence, in the course of military campaigns deliberately designed to expand Muslim territory….Nor did this conclude Islam’s program of conquest….Charlemagne blocked the Muslim advance in far western Europe in about a.d. 800, but Islamic forces simply shifted their focus…toward Italy and the French coast, attacking the Italian mainland by 837. A confused struggle for control of southern and central Italy continued for the rest of the ninth century and into the tenth. …[A]ttacks on the deep inland were launched. Desperate to protect victimized Christians, popes became involved in the tenth and early eleventh centuries in directing the defense of the territory around them…..The Byzantines took a long time to gain the strength to fight back. By the mid-ninth century, they mounted a counterattack….Sharp Muslim counterattacks followed…

In 1009, a mentally deranged Muslim ruler destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem and mounted major persecutions of Christians and Jews….Pilgrimages became increasingly difficult and dangerous, and western pilgrims began banding together and carrying weapons to protect themselves as they tried to make their way to Christianity’s holiest sites in Palestine.

Desperate, the Byzantines sent appeals for help westward, directing these appeals primarily at the person they saw as the chief western authority: the pope, who, as we have seen, had already been directing Christian resistance to Muslim attacks….finally, in 1095, Pope Urban II realized Pope Gregory VII’s desire, in what turned into the First Crusade.

Far from being unprovoked, then, the crusades actually represent the first great western Christian counterattack against Muslim attacks which had taken place continually from the inception of Islam until the eleventh century, and which continued on thereafter, mostly unabated. Three of Christianity’s five primary episcopal sees (Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria) had been captured in the seventh century; both of the others (Rome and Constantinople) had been attacked in the centuries before the crusades. The latter would be captured in 1453, leaving only one of the five (Rome) in Christian hands by 1500. Rome was again threatened in the sixteenth century. This is not the absence of provocation; rather, it is a deadly and persistent threat, and one which had to be answered by forceful defense if Christendom were to survive.

It is difficult to underestimate the losses suffered by the Church in the waves of Muslim conquest. All of North Africa, once teeming with Christians, was conquered. There were once 500 bishops in North Africa. Now, even to this day, the Christian Church there exists only in ruins buried beneath the sand and with titular but non-residential bishops. All of Asia Minor, so lovingly evangelized by St. Paul, was lost. Much of Southern Europe was almost lost as well. It is hard to imagine any alternative to decisive military action in order to turn back waves of Muslim attack and conquest.

Myth #2: Western Christians went on crusade because their greed led them to plunder Muslims in order to get rich.

Again, not true. Few crusaders had sufficient cash both to pay their obligations at home and to support themselves decently on a crusade.” From the very beginning, financial considerations played a major role in crusade planning. The early crusaders sold off so many of their possessions to finance their expeditions that they caused widespread inflation. Although later crusaders took this into account and began saving money long before they set out, the expense was still nearly prohibitive.

One of the chief reasons for the foundering of the Fourth Crusade, and its diversion to Constantinople, was the fact that it ran out of money before it had gotten properly started, and was so indebted to the Venetians that it found itself unable to keep control of its own destiny. Louis IX’s Seventh Crusade in the mid-thirteenth century cost more than six times the annual revenue of the crown.

The popes resorted to ever more desperate ploys to raise money to finance crusades, from instituting the first income tax in the early thirteenth century to making a series of adjustments in the way that indulgences were handled that eventually led to the abuses condemned by Martin Luther.

In short: very few people became rich by crusading, and their numbers were dwarfed by those who were bankrupted. Most medieval people were quite well aware of this, and did not consider crusading a way to improve their financial situations.

Crawford states elsewhere, that plunder was often allowed or overlooked, when Christian armies conquered, in order that some bills could be paid. Sadly, plunder was commonly permitted in ancient times but was not unique to Christians. Here again, we may wish that Christian sentiments would have meant no plunder at all, but war is seldom orderly, and the motive of every individual solider cannot be perfectly controlled.

The bottom line remains, conducting a crusade was a lousy way to get rich or raise any money at all.

Myth #3: Crusaders were a cynical lot who did not really believe their own religious propaganda; rather, they had ulterior, materialistic motives.

This has been a very popular argument, at least from Voltaire on. It seems credible and even compelling to modern people, steeped as they are in materialist worldviews. And certainly there were cynics and hypocrites in the Middle Ages—medieval people were just as human as we are, and subject to the same failings.

However, like the first two myths, this statement is generally untrue, and demonstrably so. For one thing, the casualty rates on the crusades were usually very high, and many if not most crusaders left expecting not to return. At least one military historian has estimated the casualty rate for the First Crusade at an appalling 75 percent, for example.

But this assertion is also revealed to be false when we consider the way in which the crusades were preached. Crusaders were not drafted. Participation was voluntary, and participants had to be persuaded to go. The primary means of persuasion was the crusade sermon. Crusade sermons were replete with warnings that crusading brought deprivation, suffering, and often death….would disrupt their lives, possibly impoverish and even kill or maim them, and inconvenience their families.

So why did the preaching work? It worked because crusading was appealing precisely because it was a known and significant hardship, and because undertaking a crusade with the right motives was understood as an acceptable penance for sin….valuable for one’s soul. The willing acceptance of difficulty and suffering was viewed as a useful way to purify one’s soul

Related to the concept of penance is the concept of crusading as an act of selfless love, of “laying down one’s life for one’s friends.”

As difficult as it may be for modern people to believe, the evidence strongly suggests that most crusaders were motivated by a desire to please God, expiate their sins, and put their lives at the service of their “neighbors,” understood in the Christian sense.

Yes, and such concepts ARE difficult for modern Westerners to believe. Since we are so secular and cynical, the thought of spiritual motives strike us as implausible. But a great Cartesian divide, with its materialist reductionism,  separates the Modern West from the Middle Ages and Christian antiquity.  Those were days when life in this world was brutal and short, and life here was “a valley of tears” to be endured as a time of purification preparing us to meet God. Spiritual principles held much more sway than today.

Myth #4: The crusades taught Muslims to hate and attack Christians.

Muslims had been attacking Christians for more than 450 years before Pope Urban declared the First Crusade. They needed no incentive to continue doing so. But there is a more complicated answer here, as well.

The first Muslim crusade history did not [even] appear until 1899. By that time, the Muslim world was rediscovering the crusades—but it was rediscovering them with a twist learned from Westerners. In the modern period, there were two main European schools of thought about the crusades. One school, epitomized by people like Voltaire, Gibbon, and Sir Walter Scott, and in the twentieth century Sir Steven Runciman, saw the crusaders as crude, greedy, aggressive barbarians who attacked civilized, peace-loving Muslims to improve their own lot. The other school, more romantic, saw the crusades as a glorious episode in a long-standing struggle in which Christian chivalry had driven back Muslim hordes.

So it was not the crusades that taught Islam to attack and hate Christians. …Rather, it was the West which taught Islam to hate the crusades.

Yes, the strange self-loathing tendencies of the dying West do supply our detractors, and would-be destroyers, with ample reason to detest us.

I am interested in your thoughts. I don’t think it is necessary to vehemently defend the Church’s and the Christian West’s series of Crusades. There were many regrettable things that accompany any war. But fair is fair, there is more to the picture than many, with anti-Church agendas of their own, wish to admit.

And for those secularist and atheists who love to tout “how many have died as the result of religious wars and violence,” We do well to recall how many died in the 20th century for secular ideological reasons. Paul Johnson, the English Historian, in his book Modern Times, places the number at 1oo million.

Does this excuse even one person dying as the result of religious war? No. But fair is fair. Violence, war, conquest  and territorial disputes, are human problems not necessarily or only religious ones.

Painting: The Preaching of the Crusades form Wikipedia Commons

This video covers some of the Christian ruins in North Africa, including the See of St Cyprian of Carthage